Unique ergodicity and the approximation of attractors and their invariant measures using Ulam's method

Nonlinearity ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fern Y Hunt
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (10) ◽  
pp. 2769-2792
Author(s):  
GARY FROYLAND ◽  
CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN ◽  
RUA MURRAY

The paper by Froyland, González-Tokman and Quas [Stability and approximation of random invariant densities for Lasota–Yorke map cocycles.Nonlinearity27(4) (2014), 647] established fibrewise stability of random absolutely continuous invariant measures (acims) for cocycles of random Lasota–Yorke maps under a variety of perturbations, including ‘Ulam’s method’, a popular numerical method for approximating acims. The expansivity requirements of Froylandet alwere that the cocycle (or powers of the cocycle) should be ‘expanding on average’ before applying a perturbation, such as Ulam’s method. In the present work, we make a significant theoretical and computational weakening of the expansivity hypotheses of Froylandet al, requiring only that the cocycle be eventually expanding on average, and importantly,allowing the perturbation to be applied after each single step of the cocycle. The family of random maps that generate our cocycle need not be close to a fixed map and our results can handle very general driving mechanisms. We provide a detailed numerical example of a random Lasota–Yorke map cocycle with expanding and contracting behaviour and illustrate the extra information carried by our fibred random acims, when compared to annealed acims or ‘physical’ random acims.


Nonlinearity ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1029-1051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Froyland

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 1010-1032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Bose ◽  
Gary Froyland ◽  
Cecilia González-Tokman ◽  
Rua Murray

1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. KATOK ◽  
R. J. SPATZIER

The proofs of Theorems 5.1 and 7.1 of [2] contain a gap. We will show below how to close it under some suitable additional assumptions in these theorems and their corollaries. We will assume the notation of [2] throughout. In particular, $\mu$ is a measure invariant and ergodic under an $R^k$-action $\alpha$. Let us first explain the gap. Both theorems are proved by establishing a dichotomy for the conditional measures of $\mu$ along the intersection of suitable stable manifolds. They were either atomic or invariant under suitable translation or unipotent subgroups $U$. Atomicity eventually led to zero entropy. Invariance of the conditional measures showed invariance of $\mu$ under $U$. We then claimed that $\mu$ was algebraic using, respectively, unique ergodicity of the translation subgroup on a rational subtorus or Ratner's theorem (cf. [2, Lemma 5.7]). This conclusion, however, only holds for the $U$-ergodic components of $\mu$ which may not equal $\mu$. In fact, in the toral case, the $R^k$-action may have a zero-entropy factor such that the conditional measures along the fibers are Haar measures along a foliation by rational subtori. Since invariant measures with zero entropy have not been classified, we cannot conclude algebraicity of the total measure $\mu$ at this time. In the toral case, the existence of zero entropy factors turns out to be precisely the obstruction to our methods. The case of Weyl chamber flows is somewhat different as the ‘Haar’ direction of the measure may not be integrable. In this case, we need to use additional information coming from the semisimplicity of the ambient Lie group to arrive at the versions of Theorem 7.1 presented below.


2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Bose ◽  
◽  
Rua Murray ◽  

1979 ◽  
Vol 167 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Schmidt

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 1937-1944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paweł Góra ◽  
◽  
Abraham Boyarsky

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document